The idea being, people who break little laws, also tend to break big ones.
I think you have that backward. It should read, "people who break big laws, also tend to break little ones."
As in, "people who intend to bomb a rally have no qualms about not keeping up with their taxes." Not, "people who don't keep up with their taxes have no qualms about bombing rallies."
To an officer making a traffic stop, it's perfectly visible and readable, and nothing is obstructing his ability to read your plate. To the dash-cam in his patrol car, it's a white license-plate-sized blob.
Of course, that right there is enough to get some serious attention payed to you. There is then video evidence that you, John Smith with (officer read) license plate 123 XYZ, have taken steps to obscure your license plate from cameras, as seen in the timestamped dashcam video of you being pulled over. It may not be illegal, but you can't be certain of that.
You should at least turn it off when you're being pulled over. You don't want to automatically be a suspect in any crime where the perpetrator used the same method. Extra police attention never does you good, even if you are innocent.
This discussion is really starting to bore me and I'm apparently doing a poor job of explaining myself. Read the literature yourself; this is a very thoroughly discussed issue. I imagine the misunderstanding comes down to some semantic mismatch, but I'm not interested in locating it.
Let's take that a step further. There are N axes. Let's pick some issues: abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, federal reserve policy, privacy, Syria policy, and Afghanistan policy.
Now. What do you call a gay couple that supports abortion rights but only in the first trimester, opposes the death penalty, doesn't want to abolish the Fed but wants to remove employment from the mandate, doesn't mind if the NSA reads their mail, wants to invade Syria and wants to pull out of Afghanistan now?
The 9th (and somewhat 10th) amendment were drafted for the purpose of avoiding confusion about the enumeration of powers and rights, but it is somewhat depressing that the majority of people today believe that their only federal rights are those outlined by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
Madison was right, but I wonder if things wouldn't be much worse now if there never was a Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments went out the window almost immediately, so at least we have the others to act as a bulwark for now.
PS: Most of your argument does not seem to have anything particular to do with tunneling, and would work for any extended wave function.
My argument sounds like that because that is my point. There's nothing particularly special about tunneling. Once the probability function spans the barrier, the particle is capable of existing on either side. There's no superluminal motion involved at all. Of course, the wavefunction itself can only travel at a finite speed (much less than c, we're talking about an electron in this case), but once it spans the barrier, the tunneling process itself is instantaneous.
To clarify, the satellite and unattended operation stuff is great, but it has already been informally addressed. Ciphers are allowed for authentication, provided that they don't obscure non-authentication content. This proposed rule would expand that to cover control codes for satellites and unattended stations, but in spirit those exceptions were tacitly allowed already.
Read the memo, though. The main reason they want to allow encryption is for communication with government emergency services. The proposed change would only allow encryption for these reasons:
(a) signals exchanged between an amateur station and a space station in the amateur satellite service for the purpose of controlling the operation of the space station; and
(b) signals exchanged between an amateur station and an unattended amateur station for the purpose of controlling the operation of the unattended amateur station; and
(c) intercommunications when participating in emergency services operations or related training exercises which may involve information covered by HIPAA or other sensitive data such as logistical information concerning medical supplies, personnel movement, other relief supplies or any other data designated by Federal authorities managing relief or training efforts
This isn't about modernizing amateur radio or allowing exciting new uses, it's about making it compliant with other boring federal regulations.
Well they already allow proprietary protocols like DSTAR (you can decode the packets and see what's there, but you have to pay a company for the privilege to do so - not quite in the spirit of ham radio).
Why not allow encrypted packets with a cleartext callsign wrapper? Then you can verify the source of the packets and have access to modern uses of the spectrum. Frankly, I think digital modes are more interesting that ragchewing with the oldtimers anyway, and some of the old FCC rules and bandplans are causing amateur radio to seriously stagnate.
Eventually, I'd like to do further automated scripting. Namely, take the IP address, do a whois on it, look for the abuse contact email at the ISP, and email them the relevant log entries, with a polite request to investigate.
I'm sure you will be careful with this, but I just want to post a friendly reminder. Depending on how you organize your script and how often the same person hits your network, there's a chance you'll end up flooding the abuse contact with email. Not only will they not appreciate that, but there is a chance of amplification and bogging down their abuse handling process.
In addition to the abuse-mailbox field you mention, it would be nice to standardize on an abuse report format, too. That way we could be confident that abuse reports can be properly fed into a system without depending on a human reading them directly.
Neither are remotely as good as Google was five years ago.
This is what bugs me the most. In an effort to have million of hits for every search, they've completely screwed up the actual usefulness of the search itself. It wouldn't be so bad if Google had always sucked, but it actually used to be very good.
I don't use Bing, either, but I do if someone's looking over my shoulder. I also say thing things like, "let me Bing that for you." The reactions are great, but I think I actually got some people using it. I feel a little bad for that.
Yet without them, there wouldn't have been as much economic activity with the freeing of resources and greater industrialization that helped bring about the modern world.
This premise is unsupported, though, and forms the foundation of all of the pro-robber baron arguments.
The "signal" represented is psi squared, or the probability of finding the particle at a particular position in space. The particle can exist anywhere under that curve. With an energetic enough particle or a small enough potential barrier, the particle can predictable tunnel across the barrier, which is what the video is showing (The video is showing the probability of the particle tunneling).
The tunneling process itself depends on collapsing the wavefunction and the particle interacting with some other physical process. Collapsing the wavefunction is an instantaneous "event". Any time the probability function spans both sides of the potential barrier, there is a chance that the particle can "exist" on either side of the barrier. In this case, it never crossed the barrier, because it always had a chance of existing on both sides of it.
"Nope. The motion propagates to the far end at the speed of sound in the pole"
I think they are referring to actually moving the pole. As in, push and pull (on/off). Are you suggesting that one end would not move at the same time as the other end?
That's correct. The push and pull would propagate through the pole at the speed of sound. You don't see this with short poles (ie in real life) because the poles are small and the speed of sound is relatively high in solids.
The electron stops probably being at one place and becomes more probably in another place.
Well, there was a probability of it being in both places the entire time. Tunneling just means that its probability function spans a region that it couldn't exist in otherwise.
It's not really that profound of a process, but just like semiconductor bandgaps, it can be engineered to be useful to us.
when seen against your entire working life of 50+ years and all the benefits that come from a closer connection to your children?
I think your last sentence highlights the core issue. From what I've experienced, American employers really don't give a shit about their employees and certainly don't plan on keeping them around for 50+ years. The employees will be less useful or more expensive to them eventually and they'll be dumped long before they reach that 50 years. Whether they are happy or sad or even exist outside of work hours is no concern of the employers and anything that interrupts them milking the employee for every last drop of productivity at the lowest possible cost to them is a waste of their precious money.
Terms like "fair" and "deserves" never even enter into the discussion.
We've long since sailed past any recognizable waters and we're clear on our way to hell by any reckoning, but we've set off sailing this great ship and God forbid we change direction now. If any sailor questions the captain now, toss him over the sides. If any passenger checks his compass, he'll have to walk the plank.
I thought the Bill of Rights did include everyone. It says "all men are equal", not "all US citizens are equal and you can shit on everyone else".
The Declaration of Independence (which has no legal standing in the US) says that "all men are created equal". The Bill of Rights, which is a subset of the Constitution, says no such thing, though it doesn't specifically distinguish between citizens and non-citizens.
As much as I hate the Dice Holdings situation, Slashdot has banned Tor since long long before Dice bought them. At least as early as 2005, Slashdot was not allowing logins or posts from Tor exit nodes.
Slashdot (the company) is about as luddite as a tech oriented site can get.
Slashdot has always banned Tor nodes. Way back when, I ran an exit node at home and could no longer use Slashdot (or Google, or others). Running an exit node really does have its downsides. (And Slashdot is remarkable backward for being a tech site, which we already knew.)
Slashdot Mirror
The idea being, people who break little laws, also tend to break big ones.
I think you have that backward. It should read, "people who break big laws, also tend to break little ones."
As in, "people who intend to bomb a rally have no qualms about not keeping up with their taxes."
Not, "people who don't keep up with their taxes have no qualms about bombing rallies."
To an officer making a traffic stop, it's perfectly visible and readable, and nothing is obstructing his ability to read your plate. To the dash-cam in his patrol car, it's a white license-plate-sized blob.
Of course, that right there is enough to get some serious attention payed to you. There is then video evidence that you, John Smith with (officer read) license plate 123 XYZ, have taken steps to obscure your license plate from cameras, as seen in the timestamped dashcam video of you being pulled over. It may not be illegal, but you can't be certain of that.
You should at least turn it off when you're being pulled over. You don't want to automatically be a suspect in any crime where the perpetrator used the same method. Extra police attention never does you good, even if you are innocent.
This discussion is really starting to bore me and I'm apparently doing a poor job of explaining myself. Read the literature yourself; this is a very thoroughly discussed issue. I imagine the misunderstanding comes down to some semantic mismatch, but I'm not interested in locating it.
Cheers,
Terrorists only need to do enough to make people fear.
With news stories and government reactions like this, that's setting the bar pretty low.
Hell, the governments themselves are doing a bang up job of making people fear without any real terrorists.
Let's take that a step further. There are N axes. Let's pick some issues: abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, federal reserve policy, privacy, Syria policy, and Afghanistan policy.
Now. What do you call a gay couple that supports abortion rights but only in the first trimester, opposes the death penalty, doesn't want to abolish the Fed but wants to remove employment from the mandate, doesn't mind if the NSA reads their mail, wants to invade Syria and wants to pull out of Afghanistan now?
Unrepresented. Welcome to the club.
The 9th (and somewhat 10th) amendment were drafted for the purpose of avoiding confusion about the enumeration of powers and rights, but it is somewhat depressing that the majority of people today believe that their only federal rights are those outlined by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
Madison was right, but I wonder if things wouldn't be much worse now if there never was a Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments went out the window almost immediately, so at least we have the others to act as a bulwark for now.
PS: Most of your argument does not seem to have anything particular to do with tunneling, and would work for any extended wave function.
My argument sounds like that because that is my point. There's nothing particularly special about tunneling. Once the probability function spans the barrier, the particle is capable of existing on either side. There's no superluminal motion involved at all. Of course, the wavefunction itself can only travel at a finite speed (much less than c, we're talking about an electron in this case), but once it spans the barrier, the tunneling process itself is instantaneous.
To clarify, the satellite and unattended operation stuff is great, but it has already been informally addressed. Ciphers are allowed for authentication, provided that they don't obscure non-authentication content. This proposed rule would expand that to cover control codes for satellites and unattended stations, but in spirit those exceptions were tacitly allowed already.
Read the memo, though. The main reason they want to allow encryption is for communication with government emergency services. The proposed change would only allow encryption for these reasons:
(a) signals exchanged between an amateur station and a space station in the amateur satellite service for the purpose of controlling the operation of the space station; and
(b) signals exchanged between an amateur station and an unattended amateur station for the purpose of controlling the operation of the unattended amateur station; and
(c) intercommunications when participating in emergency services operations or related training exercises which may involve information covered by HIPAA or other sensitive data such as logistical information concerning medical supplies, personnel movement, other relief supplies or any other data designated by Federal authorities managing relief or training efforts
This isn't about modernizing amateur radio or allowing exciting new uses, it's about making it compliant with other boring federal regulations.
Well they already allow proprietary protocols like DSTAR (you can decode the packets and see what's there, but you have to pay a company for the privilege to do so - not quite in the spirit of ham radio).
Why not allow encrypted packets with a cleartext callsign wrapper? Then you can verify the source of the packets and have access to modern uses of the spectrum. Frankly, I think digital modes are more interesting that ragchewing with the oldtimers anyway, and some of the old FCC rules and bandplans are causing amateur radio to seriously stagnate.
Eventually, I'd like to do further automated scripting. Namely, take the IP address, do a whois on it, look for the abuse contact email at the ISP, and email them the relevant log entries, with a polite request to investigate.
I'm sure you will be careful with this, but I just want to post a friendly reminder. Depending on how you organize your script and how often the same person hits your network, there's a chance you'll end up flooding the abuse contact with email. Not only will they not appreciate that, but there is a chance of amplification and bogging down their abuse handling process.
In addition to the abuse-mailbox field you mention, it would be nice to standardize on an abuse report format, too. That way we could be confident that abuse reports can be properly fed into a system without depending on a human reading them directly.
Just FYI, I was doing a search for the origins of the term SCSI on Bing once and the image results were hilarious.
Neither are remotely as good as Google was five years ago.
This is what bugs me the most. In an effort to have million of hits for every search, they've completely screwed up the actual usefulness of the search itself. It wouldn't be so bad if Google had always sucked, but it actually used to be very good.
I don't use Bing, either, but I do if someone's looking over my shoulder. I also say thing things like, "let me Bing that for you." The reactions are great, but I think I actually got some people using it. I feel a little bad for that.
Yet without them, there wouldn't have been as much economic activity with the freeing of resources and greater industrialization that helped bring about the modern world.
This premise is unsupported, though, and forms the foundation of all of the pro-robber baron arguments.
The "signal" represented is psi squared, or the probability of finding the particle at a particular position in space. The particle can exist anywhere under that curve. With an energetic enough particle or a small enough potential barrier, the particle can predictable tunnel across the barrier, which is what the video is showing (The video is showing the probability of the particle tunneling).
The tunneling process itself depends on collapsing the wavefunction and the particle interacting with some other physical process. Collapsing the wavefunction is an instantaneous "event". Any time the probability function spans both sides of the potential barrier, there is a chance that the particle can "exist" on either side of the barrier. In this case, it never crossed the barrier, because it always had a chance of existing on both sides of it.
"Nope. The motion propagates to the far end at the speed of sound in the pole"
I think they are referring to actually moving the pole. As in, push and pull (on/off). Are you suggesting that one end would not move at the same time as the other end?
That's correct. The push and pull would propagate through the pole at the speed of sound. You don't see this with short poles (ie in real life) because the poles are small and the speed of sound is relatively high in solids.
The electron stops probably being at one place and becomes more probably in another place.
Well, there was a probability of it being in both places the entire time. Tunneling just means that its probability function spans a region that it couldn't exist in otherwise.
It's not really that profound of a process, but just like semiconductor bandgaps, it can be engineered to be useful to us.
A thousand years of abject terror.
when seen against your entire working life of 50+ years and all the benefits that come from a closer connection to your children?
I think your last sentence highlights the core issue. From what I've experienced, American employers really don't give a shit about their employees and certainly don't plan on keeping them around for 50+ years. The employees will be less useful or more expensive to them eventually and they'll be dumped long before they reach that 50 years. Whether they are happy or sad or even exist outside of work hours is no concern of the employers and anything that interrupts them milking the employee for every last drop of productivity at the lowest possible cost to them is a waste of their precious money.
Terms like "fair" and "deserves" never even enter into the discussion.
We've long since sailed past any recognizable waters and we're clear on our way to hell by any reckoning, but we've set off sailing this great ship and God forbid we change direction now. If any sailor questions the captain now, toss him over the sides. If any passenger checks his compass, he'll have to walk the plank.
I don't know why ya'll are so worried. President Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize.........just like Mother Teresa.
And Yasser Arafat.
...and Henry Kissinger. That prize is almost a badge of evil anymore.
I thought the Bill of Rights did include everyone. It says "all men are equal", not "all US citizens are equal and you can shit on everyone else".
The Declaration of Independence (which has no legal standing in the US) says that "all men are created equal". The Bill of Rights, which is a subset of the Constitution, says no such thing, though it doesn't specifically distinguish between citizens and non-citizens.
As much as I hate the Dice Holdings situation, Slashdot has banned Tor since long long before Dice bought them. At least as early as 2005, Slashdot was not allowing logins or posts from Tor exit nodes.
Slashdot (the company) is about as luddite as a tech oriented site can get.
Slashdot has always banned Tor nodes. Way back when, I ran an exit node at home and could no longer use Slashdot (or Google, or others). Running an exit node really does have its downsides. (And Slashdot is remarkable backward for being a tech site, which we already knew.)